Rant blog.
I was always under the impression that to design in an environmentally sustainable way meant that what you took from the environment was replaced or offset such that the impact was neutral. But the way the expression seems to be used in the design community doesn’t always reflect this. Have I got it wrong or am I just being a pedantic, grumpy old git?
#1 by David Jones on August 27, 2009 - 11:37 am
I find this interesting, and rather “on topic” for us as proponents of technologies often marketed with the green angle, specifically lighting control, BMS and on a different level, video conference.
The idea of efficient technologies appeal to most but the reality is that without a whole building mantra being laid down to dictate how every element of a building interacts, and assigning some form of policeman to govern the joining of these disparate system, my opinion is that we don’t collectively kick the green goal. Recent experience with major projects demonstrates that too many cooks in the kitchen will eventually ruin the broth. Meaning that as progressive tenancies come online and are governed by different parties, not necessarily with the ideals of the original building in tune, the green building vision becomes diluted to the point that the original goal is never fully realised.
Perhaps this is similar in vein to what you are suggesting from the design side, often the green angle is a fine marketing tool but people lose interest as the realities of the implementation kick in. Not to mention the costs.
We have the technology, we have the abilities, does the building community REALLY have the desire, that’s an unknown right now I feel, particularly in the recent economic climate.